| Author |
Message |
|
Mikael Ranelius
|
 Posted: Sat 07 Apr, 2007 6:26 am Post subject: |
 |
|
James:
The warbows’ capability to pierce armour is another discussion (and yes, medieval hunters used bow and arrow to hunt deer and other game). The use of trained archers was hardly a guarantee for victory, but yes – archer duels were common in the wars of the roses, and indeed the Scots, the French and the Burgundians tried during the late middle ages to copy the English use of archers.
Steven:
You might be right, I know of people who have trained for several years and they can now command heavy warbows. Yet the best way to become a naturally skilled archer is to practise from childhood, and this was recognised in the middle ages and tudor times. You will learn the basics much better and faster during childhood - for instance it's usually much harder for adults to learn to swim, to read, to ride a bike etc. than it is for children. The same goes for instinctive archery.
Lafayette:
Remember that we don’t know if the act actually speak of clout-shooting. We know that Englishmen mainly trained at the butts, shooting at circles. Nevertheless, my point is that an arrow is useless unless it hits a target, and it would be logical if the archers trained to hit a target as good as they were able to.
And the archers were not really an elite, at least not what I would consider an elite to be. Heavily armoured men-at-arms were elite troops, archers were just common soldiers who made up the rank and file. There were elite archers – like the “yeomen of the crown” and some household archers, but the ordinary indentured and levied archers were not elite troops
|
|
  |
 |
|
Lennon R. Clotild
|
| Posted: Sat 07 Apr, 2007 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | To be specific it definitely is NOT the "Welsh longbow". Self bows of this length have been in use on battlefields all over the world for thousands of years. The style of bow used by the English is virtually indistinguishable from Scandinavian examples. |
Can you provide me with an example? Scandinavian bows, as far as I'm aware of, are no where near the draw strength of English longbows, those of the Mary Rose for instance. And if the style of bow used by the English was indeed virtually indistinguishable from other European bows, then today we wouldn't be calling them "English" longbows, would we?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ross Tippin
Location: Philadelphia Joined: 23 Oct 2006
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Sat 07 Apr, 2007 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lennon R. Clotild wrote: | | Dan Howard wrote: | | To be specific it definitely is NOT the "Welsh longbow". Self bows of this length have been in use on battlefields all over the world for thousands of years. The style of bow used by the English is virtually indistinguishable from Scandinavian examples. |
Can you provide me with an example? Scandinavian bows, as far as I'm aware of, are no where near the draw strength of English longbows, those of the Mary Rose for instance. And if the style of bow used by the English was indeed virtually indistinguishable from other European bows, then today we wouldn't be calling them "English" longbows, would we? |
Lennon,
First, let's keep this discussion civil and free from sarcasm and borderline rudeness.
As to your question, yew D-section longbows about 6.2 ft long from the Viking period have been excavated from Haithabu in Scandinavia. They had an estimated draw weight of about 90 lbs., which is within the range of Medieval English Warbows of 80 to 180 lbs. (albiet admittedly on the low end). In the Great Warbow and The English Longbow: a social and military history, Hardy writes that there is some evidence for an increase in average draw weights of bows in the 1300s as a response to increasingly heavier defensive armor being used.
Also, the term "English Longbow" is relatively modern and there was no such distinction made in Medieval times between English and other Continental self-bows. They were simply referred to as bows. Also, Hardy and his co-author make clear in the two books mentioned above that D-Section self-bows, often made of yew and resembling Medieval English Warbows were in use in Europe since the Neolithic period. The reason the "English Longbow" is famous today is not because there was anything peculiar about the English bows that made them particularly different from self-bows employed in other parts of Europe at the time, but in the manner of their usage by the English, i.e., the deployment of large numbers archers to great effect in massed formations supported by men-at-arms, as opposed to as skirmishers. Raising large numbers of archers for massed formations requires having a population where use and practice of the bow is widespread and continental elites were reluctant to allow their peasants to be armed with such an effective weapon as the longbow used by the English Yeoman, generally preferring instead to employ professional crossbowmen and leave their peasants unarmed.
Hope this answer your question,
R.S. Tippin
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sat 07 Apr, 2007 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The only reason the longbow is called "Welsh" is because Morris read a single passage from Gerald Cambrensis and invented a whole hypothesis around it. Sir Charles Oman then perpetuated it.
FWIW the term "longbow" was used in period. However it was used to distinguish it from crossbows, not shorter self bows. The term "shortbow" is a misnomer. Every self bow ever intended for battle could be classed as a "longbow". This is why Strickland perfers the term "warbow" rather than "longbow".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Scott
|
| Posted: Sat 07 Apr, 2007 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lennon R. Clotild wrote: | | Dan Howard wrote: | | To be specific it definitely is NOT the "Welsh longbow". Self bows of this length have been in use on battlefields all over the world for thousands of years. The style of bow used by the English is virtually indistinguishable from Scandinavian examples. |
Can you provide me with an example? Scandinavian bows, as far as I'm aware of, are no where near the draw strength of English longbows, those of the Mary Rose for instance. And if the style of bow used by the English was indeed virtually indistinguishable from other European bows, then today we wouldn't be calling them "English" longbows, would we? |
Weren't some of the bows on the Nydam Ship from Denmark similar in length to the bows on the Mary Rose? I believe that ship might be pre-viking, but the round-bellied, D shaped bows on the Mary Rose are a pretty simple design for a bow.
A war without fire is like a sausage without mustard - Henry V
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Sat 07 Apr, 2007 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Ranelius wrote: | Lafayette:
Remember that we don’t know if the act actually speak of clout-shooting. We know that Englishmen mainly trained at the butts, shooting at circles. Nevertheless, my point is that an arrow is useless unless it hits a target, and it would be logical if the archers trained to hit a target as good as they were able to. |
"As good as they were able to"--very much so. But just how good did they have to be? I subscribe that this is not as much as popular culture makes it, since the longbowmen's volleys were more valuable for their morale effect than their physical destructive effect. And when an arrow is coming in your general direction you'd think it's aimed directly at you even though in the end it'll turn out missing you by a mile.
(Don't try it yourself, though; its a very unnerving experience.
| Quote: | | And the archers were not really an elite, at least not what I would consider an elite to be. Heavily armoured men-at-arms were elite troops, archers were just common soldiers who made up the rank and file. There were elite archers – like the “yeomen of the crown” and some household archers, but the ordinary indentured and levied archers were not elite troops |
Well, yes, your comment is spot-on in this respect. I wasn't precise enough in my post. Compared to man-at-arms who had to be able to handle at least three kinds of weapons proficiently, the archer is not exactly the creme de la creme. However, they were an elite when compared to the usual run of non-MAA troops like Genoese crossbowmen, brigans, or town militias. So maybe I should have said "semi-elite," which still implies that they still required a great deal more attention and expenditure to maintain than ordinary troops below the men-at-arms class.
Moving on to a different subject: I think I haven't spoken enough about how important the longbowmen's capability for hand-to-hand combat was. Let's put it into context here. English armies of the HYW and WOTR periods prescribed an official ratio of three archers for every man-at-arms, but in practice the ratio was often even heavier on the archers' side--5:1 has been mentioned before, and at Agincourt it might have been as high as 6:1 or 12:1 depending on whose account we choose to believe in. It's obvious that if the longbowmen hadn't been willing to stay and aid the men-at-arms in hand-to-hand combat, the English men-at-arms would have been placed at an overwhelming numerical disadvantage and they probably wouldn't have been able to win the spectacular victories they got in history.
Another important facet of this problem is that the imitators of the English longbowmen--especially the "archiers" in the French and Burgundian Compagnies d'Ordonnance--were trained to be able to survive hand-to-hand combat. Indeed, they later emphasized this hand-to-hand aspect of their capabilities so much that by the end of the 15th century they were no longer predominantly units of mounted archers--they had morphed into some sort of "medium" cavalry with a tactical emphasis on the charge.
The WOTR battles were also funny--in some of them, the longbowmen on both sides got fed up with the heavy attrition they got from the enemy's arrows and charged into hand-to-hand fighting for a less bloody but more decisive conclusion.
What can I say? Englishmen. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mikael Ranelius
|
| Posted: Sun 08 Apr, 2007 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | [
"As good as they were able to"--very much so. But just how good did they have to be? I subscribe that this is not as much as popular culture makes it, since the longbowmen's volleys were more valuable for their morale effect than their physical destructive effect. |
I don't agree, historical sources are unanimous on the horrible effect of the english battle shafts, especially on lighly armoured troops and horses. To claim that archery only had an effect on the moral of the enemy is to grossly underestimate the capabilites of heavy arrows loosed from strong bows and to ignore ancient sources. If they used massed archery only as an effect on moral, they might just as well have used light, impotent flight arrows without tips - and above all we wouldn't have had sources that speaks of what havoc the arrow storms caused.
| Quote: | | Well, yes, your comment is spot-on in this respect. I wasn't precise enough in my post. Compared to man-at-arms who had to be able to handle at least three kinds of weapons proficiently, the archer is not exactly the creme de la creme. However, they were an elite when compared to the usual run of non-MAA troops like Genoese crossbowmen, brigans, or town militias. So maybe I should have said "semi-elite," which still implies that they still required a great deal more attention and expenditure to maintain than ordinary troops below the men-at-arms class. |
AFAIK the genoese crosbowmen were considered to be an elite
I don't know why medieval archey is such a controversial topic, but my guess is that it's because of the semi-mythological status that has been ascribed to the english longbowmen. Modern day experts on medieval warfare probably feel that they have to confront and disprove these "myths", and in the end they turn to the other extreme and dismiss the bow almost completely, just to indicate that "I'm a serious expert and won't be fooled by popular myths". I also think that many modern day "men-at-arms" who rigorously train to be skilled in medieval fighting arts have a hard time to accept that their historical counterparts faced the risk of being hurt by a lowly archer from a distance. Historically, men-at-arms tended to underestimate archers due to wishful thinking - it seems that the pattern is repeated today. Then finally, I know that many modern archers just can't stand the fact that their forefathers might have been able to draw much heavier bows and hit targets better than they can.
|
|
|
|
|
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Sun 08 Apr, 2007 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have a bad feeling I am in for a verbal pummeling here, but just want to understand the discussion better.
By "pikesman", are we discussing troops armored like these? http://www.myArmoury.com/view.html?features/pic_eng06.jpg
I would make a wild guess that there may be 30 to 40% areas of highly vulnerable lower leg, arm, and neck and face openings.
If so, what would seem critical to me is the ability of an archer to deliver the arrow volley through a band of horizon at the proper height. This means he could deliver an arching volley penetrating from ankle high to head high anywhere along a horizon. Being accurate to within 10 yards left or right would not be nearly as important. During an advance of the pikeman, he might get off 10 such shots if all he had to do was worry about elevation. There could be fair chances of inflicting 3 discomforting wounds before the line of pikesmen reached the archers.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Felix Wang
|
| Posted: Sun 08 Apr, 2007 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you examine the picture you linked to closely, you will see that the pikemen do have armour on their arms.
More important, massed archery is descending in an arc, not travelling on a level path. In that trajectory, the face is easily warded by tilting the head forwards; the neck similarly warded; the back of the neck and legs are not targets at all.
I agree that the Genoese were an elite, among infantrymen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Sun 08 Apr, 2007 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Ranelius wrote: | | I don't agree, historical sources are unanimous on the horrible effect of the english battle shafts, especially on lighly armoured troops and horses. To claim that archery only had an effect on the moral of the enemy is to grossly underestimate the capabilites of heavy arrows loosed from strong bows and to ignore ancient sources. If they used massed archery only as an effect on moral, they might just as well have used light, impotent flight arrows without tips - and above all we wouldn't have had sources that speaks of what havoc the arrow storms caused. |
I won't contend with the conclusion that arrows were effective against unarmored men and the unarmored horses of armored men-at-arms. In respect to the original question on pikes, English arrows obviously produced an appreciable effect upon the mostly unarmored Scottish pike formations until the Scots began to adopt armor in significant quantities during the 16th centuries. The fact remains, however, that elsewhere--in the continent, that is--the longbowmen fought mostly against dismounted men-at-arms who fought on foot and hence didn't have to worry about unarmored horses. Against these men the effect of the longbow was more moral than physical--and it would be a great mistake too to underestimate the significance of this moral effect. It has been shown in many modern riots and similar encounters that a hail of missiles would slow down the advance of even the most heavily-armored riot squads, and this precious time could be used by the defenders to prepare--or to launch a counterattack. The English mostly did the latter.
| Quote: | | AFAIK the genoese crosbowmen were considered to be an elite |
Now on this part I must confess to a typo since I'm a bit surprised to see the word "Genoese" in my own post. I had meant to write simply "crossbowmen" but maybe I got carried away and added the "Genoese" without realizing it.
| Quote: | | I don't know why medieval archey is such a controversial topic, but my guess is that it's because of the semi-mythological status that has been ascribed to the english longbowmen. Modern day experts on medieval warfare probably feel that they have to confront and disprove these "myths", and in the end they turn to the other extreme and dismiss the bow almost completely, just to indicate that "I'm a serious expert and won't be fooled by popular myths". I also think that many modern day "men-at-arms" who rigorously train to be skilled in medieval fighting arts have a hard time to accept that their historical counterparts faced the risk of being hurt by a lowly archer from a distance. Historically, men-at-arms tended to underestimate archers due to wishful thinking - it seems that the pattern is repeated today. Then finally, I know that many modern archers just can't stand the fact that their forefathers might have been able to draw much heavier bows and hit targets better than they can. |
Well, I don't know about that, but even as a modern archer I'm not skeptical of 180-pound draws. I've seen people do it without much difficulty--after a good many years of practice, of course--and I'm quite convinced that it can have a very devastating effect against an unarmored target.
What I disagree with is the notion that longbowmen won their battles all on their own and solely by the power of their arrows. Other than Homildon Hill, how many battles were there in which the enemy were routed by the arrows alone and did not get into any significant amount of hand-to-hand fighting at all? Compare it to the number of battles where the enemy still got into hand-to-hand fighting despite the arrows that had fallen upon them (and perhaps even still falling upon them) and we'll get the picture that the principal value of the longbowmen lay in their ability to function as part of a combined-arms system, not just as a one-dimensional army of archers.
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Sun 08 Apr, 2007 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lafayette,
If the arrows were not able to kill them I assume the dismouted MAA would be a lot less afraid of the longbowmen.... 
Like Stepen hand said armour lessens the arrow casualties but does not halt it.
I agree that moral need be thrown in the equation. If you see the arrow storm or 5-10 percent of the men around you killed anyone might wonder if they had made a good choice going to war today. 
Not sure but that picture of pikemen looks 16th centuryish to me. It also even for the 16th theyhave much more armour that the average pikeman would at that time to me. Full arms I thought was a halbardiers thing or cavalry.... not my specialty though just thinking that in england the almain rivets seem often to have shoulder but no arm armour.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mikael Ranelius
|
| Posted: Mon 09 Apr, 2007 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
I won't contend with the conclusion that arrows were effective against unarmored men and the unarmored horses of armored men-at-arms. In respect to the original question on pikes, English arrows obviously produced an appreciable effect upon the mostly unarmored Scottish pike formations until the Scots began to adopt armor in significant quantities during the 16th centuries. The fact remains, however, that elsewhere--in the continent, that is--the longbowmen fought mostly against dismounted men-at-arms who fought on foot and hence didn't have to worry about unarmored horses. Against these men the effect of the longbow was more moral than physical--and it would be a great mistake too to underestimate the significance of this moral effect. It has been shown in many modern riots and similar encounters that a hail of missiles would slow down the advance of even the most heavily-armored riot squads, and this precious time could be used by the defenders to prepare--or to launch a counterattack. The English mostly did the latter. |
Judging from the sources, the english arrows could harm the armoured men-at-arms of the french and other enemies. Of course advanced armour will protect you to a much higher degree than if lighly armoured or unarmoured, but still an armoured man was far from invurnable, although armour developed during the 15th century to be almost, and I mean almost, arrow-proof.
| Quote: | | What I disagree with is the notion that longbowmen won their battles all on their own and solely by the power of their arrows. Other than Homildon Hill, how many battles were there in which the enemy were routed by the arrows alone and did not get into any significant amount of hand-to-hand fighting at all? Compare it to the number of battles where the enemy still got into hand-to-hand fighting despite the arrows that had fallen upon them (and perhaps even still falling upon them) and we'll get the picture that the principal value of the longbowmen lay in their ability to function as part of a combined-arms system, not just as a one-dimensional army of archers. |
That I do agree with. No one seriously devoted to medieval archery and medieval warfare would claim that archery alone would resolve all battles. I think Stephen Hand hit the nail on the head when he compared archery to later use of artilley
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Mon 09 Apr, 2007 4:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Ranelius wrote: | | Judging from the sources, the english arrows could harm the armoured men-at-arms of the french and other enemies. Of course advanced armour will protect you to a much higher degree than if lighly armoured or unarmoured, but still an armoured man was far from invurnable, although armour developed during the 15th century to be almost, and I mean almost, arrow-proof. |
Actually, the sources are clear that a man fully armoured stood a very good chance of coming to handstrokes so the phrase "far from invulnerable" should be changed to "virtually invulnerable". The chance of a longbow arrow punching through plate under battlefield conditions is so low as to be statistically negligible. There are exactly two examples in the sources and both arrows hit a piece of plate that was significantly thinner than a breastplate and even then neither arrow penetrated far enough to incapacitate the wearer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mikael Ranelius
|
| Posted: Mon 09 Apr, 2007 6:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: |
Actually, the sources are clear that a man fully armoured stood a very good chance of coming to handstrokes so the phrase "far from invulnerable" should be changed to "virtually invulnerable". The chance of a longbow arrow punching through plate under battlefield conditions is so low as to be statistically negligible. There are exactly two examples in the sources and both arrows hit a piece of plate that was significantly thinner than a breastplate and even then neither arrow penetrated far enough to incapacitate the wearer. |
Sure, but there's a difference between plate and plate. It was first in the second half of the HYW that men-at-arms encased themselves in plate cap-á-pie, before that (and even after) arrows could hit weak spots. But a discussion about the battle shaft's ability to pierce armour won't take us nowhere - it's another discussion that most likely will result in a bitter and pointless flame-war.
The important thing is that several sources really indicate that arrows did injure and kill people (whether is specifically says it pierced armour or not), not just frightened men or horses. At the battle of Poitiers for instance, we're told that English archers pulled arrows from dead bodies to re-use them. As I said before, if bows and arrows (including crossbows) were harmless weapons no one would use them, not to speak of adopting them like the Scots, French and Burgundians did.
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Mon 09 Apr, 2007 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Danger Will Robinson Danger.... 
Has this not been brought up a million times. It is clear from contemporary accounts (many posted on this board repeated times) that armour had limitations to the longbow and that men in full armour died when an arrow pierced their armour (negligible is not a word I'd use to describe its effect, especially if you were the one killed so but anyway).
It has on the same posts been shown armour could protect many times from arrows (as also has been repeated time and again). We might as well dredge up those other posts if we are not going to add anything new to the discussion.
Invulnerable (or virtually or nearly invulnerable) armour is just as much a myth as the longbow that could pierce any armour. Both have realistic factors that apply and determine their effect and use that also have been listed before.
Back to the Pike verse archers. Something that came to mind was the use of both in the same army as well. Charles the Bold made good use of them both verse the french in his early campaigns. Burgundy from an early date begins to add longbows into their forces and use them to good effect such as John, Duke of Burgundy but always supported by MAA or onther infantry. I think in the end if a unit of pikes were left static to longbows they would be destroyed but it would be a poor general who allow his pikes to do so. The flip side if the archers are forced to engage hand to hand as the swiss tried with everyone by very agressive charges they would not have the time nor distance to use their weapon effectively. In the end I think both troops could be very useful against the other but the combination of them and effective use would decide the day. There are cases of that indicate both had successes and failures so in the end the answer to the question would be depends.
RPM
Added some links where those who want to see past threads on armour/longbows/crossbows/penetration (or just have nothing else to do for the next week-Easter break is great right) can find them:
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...ht=longbow
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...ht=longbow
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...enetration
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...enetration
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...ht=longbow
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...sbow+armor
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...sbow+armor
Last edited by Randall Moffett on Mon 09 Apr, 2007 8:24 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Coffman
|
| Posted: Mon 09 Apr, 2007 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
So arrows could kill people and armour could stop them, but not everyone wore enough armour to be safe. If even half of the people in one army were sufficiently armoured to be 99% safe then heavy archer fire would still be worth it. I generally take the side that armour could stop arrows but how many fighters were heavily armoured? I also believe that there would be a demoralizing effect however this is contingent on the arrows being effective. If I and everyone else arround me feel no danger from the arrows then they can't be demoralizing, can they? They are then just a nuisance and not effective at all. Maybe this happened sometimes with more heavily armoured troops. However, I don't think the question is whether arrow fire was deadly or more of a moral drain. My question is, how many people would have been sufficiently armoured and how many would have been at risk of getting shot and therefore demoralized?
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
-Hebrews 4:12
|
|
|
|
|
|
James R
|
| Posted: Mon 09 Apr, 2007 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
This isn't just a middle ages discussion; there are examples of pike/spear formations v/s archers from Greek and Roman or other eras, too, aren't there? I've read a little bit, and I was left with the impression that missle fire was only a hindereance to even moderately-armored infantry formations, and it took either spear/pikemen or cavalry hitting the formation in the flank or rear to break it apart.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Mon 09 Apr, 2007 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think the problem here is that too many of us see the archery vs. (whatever) problem from a soldier's perspective. We need to look at it from the leader's perspective. If you have 5000 archers and I charge them with cavalry, and I only lose 2% of my 2000 cavalrymen, that is a negligible loss and as far as I'm concerned, that cavalry is pretty much invulnerable to the archers.
However, as one of the cavalry, seeing 40 knights die during the charge is horrible, and I would consider the bow a devastating weapon and would be cautious when facing it.
Ultimately, it's not one suit of armor vs. one bow. It's a numbers game, and as many have said, historically the bow has not made much of a dent in armored troops. That does not mean it did not kill a great many of them.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
 |
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Mon 09 Apr, 2007 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Michael,
To go along with that. How many men can die before your army breaks and runs? Keegan has some interesting insights into this. In many cases it is not needed that a large percent is killed or even wounded before they break. Both a knight and General might see things differently but ultimatly the general has to know if he loses enough men, even if it a small total of the total army they could break and endgame. But I agree. The generals job it to see how he can accomplish his enemy breaking and knows likely loses will occur and he has to decide what he is willing to risk or not.
I still think the bow made quite a difference against the armoured men at arms class historically but that is from what my studies have taken me.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Mon 09 Apr, 2007 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Randall,
To go along with that, it takes a lot less deaths to scatter a formation that is not charging than one that is. To stand idly by while your fellow soldiers die one by one is very demoralizing. It takes a lot of maneuvering to get units into position, and that lag can be exploited by archers.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic